Get Proposal Details

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context about what the response includes (cover letter, bid, status, screening answers) and the response_format option. It does not disclose any extra caveats, but for a simple read operation the annotations carry much of the burden.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-organized with a one-line purpose, expanded details, Args, and Returns sections. It is appropriately sized for a two-parameter tool. There is minor redundancy between 'Get detailed information' and 'Retrieve the full proposal,' but no unnecessary fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only retrieval tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context: the target resource, key return fields, and output format choice. It does not detail every possible response field or error behavior, but the lack of an output schema is partially mitigated by the Returns summary.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the argument descriptions in the schema fully document both proposal_id and response_format. The description largely repeats this information without adding significant new meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Get detailed information about a specific proposal.' It also enumerates key contents (cover letter, screening answers, status), which clarifies what the tool returns. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like upwork_list_proposals or upwork_get_proposal_stats, so it misses the top score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool is for retrieving full details of one known proposal by ID, which is a clear use case. However, it offers no explicit guidance about when to choose this over alternatives such as upwork_get_proposal_stats or upwork_list_proposals, or what to do if only the proposal list is needed.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.